On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:50:11PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:38:21AM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > @@ -3409,6 +3417,9 @@ int __kmem_cache_shrink(struct kmem_cache *s)
> > kmalloc(sizeof(struct list_head) * objects, GFP_KERNEL);
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > + if (memcg_cache_dead(s))
> > + s->min_partial = 0;
> > +
> > if (!slabs_by_inuse) {
> > /*
> > * Do not fail shrinking empty slabs if allocation of the
>
> I think that you should move down n->nr_partial test after holding the
> lock in __kmem_cache_shrink(). Access to n->nr_partial without node lock
> is racy and you can see wrong value. It results in skipping to free empty
> slab so your destroying logic could fail.
You're right! Will fix this.
And there seems to be the same problem in SLAB, where we check
node->slabs_free list emptiness w/o holding node->list_lock (see
drain_freelist) while it can be modified concurrently by free_block.
This will be fixed automatically after we make __kmem_cache_shrink unset
node->free_limit (which must be done under the lock) though.
Thank you!
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>